Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals & Charles Clark case brief
summary
435 F.Supp. 352 (1977)
DISCUSSION
The court entered judgment in favor of the football team and the opposing player. Even if the opposing player breached a duty owed by striking the football player, the football player assumed the risk of such an injury due to the level of violence and the frequency of emotional outbursts in the league. The football player was not a beneficiary of the standard player contract for the purposes of imposing liability because that would require a strained interpretation of the contract. The claim for emotional distress was denied because the football player did not suffer emotional distress and the opposing player's actions were not outside the norms of the game. The football team was not liable because the opposing player's actions were not outside what was expected in the league. Due to the complex issues, any governmental involvement in the league would have to be through legislation.
CONCLUSION
The court entered judgment after trial on behalf of the football team and opposing player.
Suggested Study Aid For Sports Law
435 F.Supp. 352 (1977)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Plaintiff football player filed a
complaint alleging negligence and reckless misconduct against
defendant football team and opposing player arising out of injuries
sustained by the football player during an emotional outburst by the
opposing player.DISCUSSION
The court entered judgment in favor of the football team and the opposing player. Even if the opposing player breached a duty owed by striking the football player, the football player assumed the risk of such an injury due to the level of violence and the frequency of emotional outbursts in the league. The football player was not a beneficiary of the standard player contract for the purposes of imposing liability because that would require a strained interpretation of the contract. The claim for emotional distress was denied because the football player did not suffer emotional distress and the opposing player's actions were not outside the norms of the game. The football team was not liable because the opposing player's actions were not outside what was expected in the league. Due to the complex issues, any governmental involvement in the league would have to be through legislation.
CONCLUSION
The court entered judgment after trial on behalf of the football team and opposing player.
Suggested Study Aid For Sports Law
No comments:
Post a Comment